Posted on 02/22/2017 12:26:00 PM PST by Sgt_Schultze
Freed up by the Supreme Court’s ongoing reluctance to engage in depth with the Second Amendment, the Fourth Circuit has taken it upon itself to rewrite Heller en banc. In a 10-4 decision, issued yesterday afternoon, the court upheld Maryland’s ban on both “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines.” By so doing, it deprived the people of Maryland, the Carolinas, and the Virginias of the core protections to which the Constitution entitles them.
As Judge Traxler’s dissent pointedly establishes, the majority achieved this transformation by contriving “a heretofore unknown ‘test,’ which is whether the firearm in question is ‘most useful in military service.’” In effect, this “test” is designed to permit judges to determine that any weapon they might dislike is unprotected by the Second Amendment and can therefore be prohibited with impunity. Forget that Heller contains its own explicit tests. Forget the “common use” standard. Forget “dangerous and unusual.” There’s a new kid in town, and he’s coming for your rifles.
What counts as “most useful in military service” under this rubric? Well . . . everything, theoretically.
. . . continued
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Seems the court seriously overlooked a footnote in _Heller_ (which while it does not carry weight of law, it serves as a warning to future litigants) wherein Scalia basically said full-auto M16s would be found completely legal if SCOTUS were compelled to rule thereon.
Sounds like a perfect time to bring a case in MD demanding legalization of short shotguns.
unless a court deems the arm to be battlefield worthy.
= = =
I am reading some 14th century history.
Sticks, arrows, clubs, horses, swords, pitchforks, etc. - - all battlefield arms.
Ping
Congress is in the business of taking care of themselves. They do not want accountability for anything and have abdicated many of their powers to both the executive and judicial branches.
It’s what they do.
2. Not violative of the Second Amendment of the Federal Constitution. P. 178.The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon.
Appeal. Let’s argue in June!! Yes Perfect!!
The Fourth Circuit will find itself at odds with the SCOTUS Miller decision, which held that civilian-owned firearms “that are usual to military use” are protected under the Second Amendment. Recall that the Miller decision held that a sawed-off shotgun was not usual to military use, and thus was not a weapon protected under the Second Amendment.
When your quest is a predetermined decision, and your word is likely final, then any rationale will do.
Yep, did some reading on this one. More liberal judges making it up as they go violating their oaths.
So judge Wilkinson has passed over to the Dark Side. To think that he was once the darling of the GOP.
Well, I just retired and am looking to relocate from Los Angeles. It won’t be to the area assigned to the Fourth Circuit Court. A$$holes!! SSZ
As pointed out in the quote included in Post #26, the Supreme Court in Miller made no decision regarding the short-barreled shotgun and, in fact, remanded the case back to the District Court for future proceedings. Unfortunately, neither of the parties, Miller nor Layton, was available to pursue the case.
The clear implication was that, if the shotgun was useful to a Militia, then its possession by Miller would have been protected by the Second Amendment. This is totally opposite to this terrible decision.
The Supreme Court did NOT decide that the shotgun was not useful. Such a determination would require fact-finding which is more properly a function of the lower court. That is why they reversed and REMANDED the case.
Yes, that’s it. A bad decision.
In Miller SCOTUS held that a sawed-off shotgun was not a usual military arm, and thus was not a weapon protected under the Second Amendment. The defendants in the original case apparently did not even offer up any kind of legal defense vis-à-vis SCOTUS.
A shotgun has use as a military arm, but not — per SCOTUS in Miller — a sawed-off shotgun.
In the instant case the Fourth Circuit has held the dozens of common semi-auto firearms are not protected by the Second Amendment, and thus arguably that decision is in conflict with Miller.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.